reach at a definite conclusion. Such conclusion must be supported by reasons. In the instant matter, the disciplinary authority should have given reference of all documents or the other evidence available on basis of which he satisfied himself regarding guilt of the petitioner. The absence of such reasons makes the order impugned bad. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (dead) by LRs & Ors. Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr. reported in 2004 (7) SCC 431 held that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter must be given. In the instant case no reasons of whatsoever nature are available in the order impugned and the same, therefore, is bad in the eye of law. It is pertinent to note that under the Rules of 1958 a penalty can be imposed upon the government servant for good and sufficient reasons, thus, a good and sufficient reason should be there for imposing a penalty and availability of such reasons must reflect in the order concerned. Recording of reasons acquires more importance whenever and wherever the order is open to appeal. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the disciplinary authority under the Rules of 1958 is appealable under Rule 23 and as such the order passed by the disciplinary authority, may that be as a consequent to the proceedings under rule 16 or 17 of the Rules of 1958, is required to be a reasoned one.
